[LINK] Does the NBN bring redundancy?
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Wed Oct 5 15:24:28 AEDT 2011
On 5/10/11 1:31 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:21, Paul Brooks<pbrooks-link at layer10.com.au> wrote:
>> Hope this helps.
> Thanks Paul!
> This gave me a nice idea of what the NBN does and what it does not.
> However the paragraph "For long-haul fibre backbones (which is what I
> see in my mental picture when I see the word 'backbone') the NBN is
> not playing in that space" gave me doubts. Does that for city-to-city
> links the NBN won't be a competitive player with existing fibres?.
> When I wrote the question, I was thinking of the city-to-city WAN. In
> other words if a -for example- Sydney-Brisbane fibre already exists
> (say, from Telstra) if the NBN will rent space -dark fibre- on that or
> build a second, NBN-owned city-to-city fibre link nevertheless and in
> parallel, to bring competition to the private operator and hopefully
> prices down.
The NBN won't carry long-haul, except I suppose for its own corporate
network traffic, which it would buy from a fibre owner.
Intercity fibre is outside the NBN's brief, with an exception I'll get
to in a second.
Take Sydney-Melbourne: there are at least four carriers operating their
own fibre on that route - Telstra, Optus, AAPT and Nextgen - and where
routes are contested and have heavy traffic, prices aren't a problem. So
it would be completely superfluous to have an NBN-operated fibre on
Also remember that NBN Co is a wholesale-only operator: it will not
offer inter-city WAN services, because that's a retailer's job.
The long-haul exception is where Telstra is the only operator of a
long-haul fibre. The NBN operator is allowed to build its own fibre in
> I'm asking not only out of curiosity but also due to self-interest...
> the local government down here is also engaged in a NBN, but playing
> the long-haul backbone game, and they recently announced that they won
> be building redundant links in parallel with existing infrastructure,
> they will just use current fibre links whenever possible, and build
> new infrastructure where there is none, which I think is a big
> "surrender" flag to the incumbents, could be interpreted as a hand out
> to the incumbent players (even if it's a peering agreement with no
> money exchanged) and finally it also kills any hope of bringing down
> rates, not to mention continuing with the current
> single-point-of-failure network where often a whole State is connected
> by a single fibre link owned by the private incumbent.
> Thanks for your reply.
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
More information about the Link